Opinion
4:21CV59-PPS/JEM
09-13-2021
ALEXANDRA HUSTEDT, Plaintiff, v. HUNTER WARFIELD, INC., Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff Alexandra Hustedt has filed a motion asking that her case be remanded to the state court from which it was removed. [DE 12.] Hustedt's Amended Complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Tippecanoe County alleged violations by defendant Hunter Warfield, Inc. of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. [DE 5 at ¶3.] Hunter Warfield's notice of removal is predicated on the Amended Complaint's invocation of the FCRA and FDCPA. [DE 1 at ¶3.] Claims based on these federal statutes clearly create federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331, and authorized removal pursuant to §1441(a).
In support of her motion to remand, Hustedt argues only that “in its Answer, HW claims ‘Plaintiff has not suffered a concrete, injury-in-fact.'” [DE 12 at ¶6, quoting DE 9 at ¶97.] No. memorandum in support of the motion to remand has been filed, and the motion contains no discussion or citation to legal authority that would support Hustedt's contention that this affirmative defense somehow impacts the removability of the case. Because the Amended Complaint clearly states civil actions “of which the district courts of the United Sattes have original jurisdiction, ” removal was proper and the motion to remand is without merit. 28 U.S.C. §1441.
ACCORDINGLY:
Plaintiff Alexandra Hustedt's Motion to Remand to State Court [DE 12] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.